Hello, as far as I know, there is no strict rule that says that a package in the AUR must follow a specific language, on the other hand, regarding the language in general (not just packages in the AUR), English is obviously the language that should be used primarily, however, in my opinion, all languages should be taken into account, because although the technological world focuses on English, many people (like me who am a native Spanish speaker) feel more comfortable reading something we already know, still, this is a great effort, since Arch being a rolling release, pages in English (like the wiki for example) are constantly updated and translations in other languages are left behind with obsolete information, and although many browsers have integrated translation functions, they do not really know what to translate, because sometimes they break content or commands that are in English.
El vie, 5 de sept de 2025, 2:29 p.m., David C Rankin <[email protected]> escribió: > On 9/5/25 2:37 AM, Adam Tazul wrote: > > According to [0] and [1], less than two billion people speak English. > > According to [2], we already have more than 8.2 billion people on Earth. > > Granted, less than 70% of these actually have access to the internet > > [3], and only 3.93% of those on a desktop/laptop are using some form of > > Linux[4], but I think it's a question worth asking regardless. > > > > There is a reason all Air-Traffic Control in every country around the > world must use English. There must be one common language to prevent > planes from crashing into each other. > > The same applies to software security. The people responsible for > validating packages are not nefarious, must be able to understand the > source and purpose. > > I'm all for making things available in all languages, but the premise in > the post above misses the salient point. What percent of those charged > with ensuring packages don't pose security concerns speak English (as at > least one language they speak)? > > There has to be a clear separation between (1) making information > available in other languages, a good thing, and (2) compromising > security by having packages slip through that no one understands, a > very, very bad thing. > > > > -- > David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E. >
